Free Will & Determinism Addendum

Free Will Theodicy

Adam had a free will.  Very few would deny this.  Angels have free will.  Again, very few would deny this.  Adam's disobedience to the law of God was an act of his free will.  The sin of the angels was likewise an act of free will.  These things are almost universally believed by Jews, Muslims, and Christians. 

Obviously, having free will offers no guarantee of future eternal security.  So, why is the idea of "free will" so admired and highly valued by philosophers and theologians? 

The only way to insure that a person is eternally secure is to rid him of "free will."  But, if "free will" is so vital to being a responsible person, then this must unchangeably be the state of creatures.  But, if this is so, then there can be no certain security for any creature.  If I have "free will" in glory, then I will never be secure.  If God so fixes my will, however, that it cannot choose to violate the will of God, then how is my will "free"?  Does God not determine the future actions of the will in "glorification"? 

Why do Christians pray for God to conquer, subdue, rule, and control their will if "free will" is a necessary virtue to being?

The will is never free in every respect, but only in relation to specific things.  Only God has free will in its most perfect and absolute sense.  People are either free from or to.  They are "free from" this or that, and are "free to" think, say, or do this or that.  Not only is freedom relative, but it is also limited. 

 

Clarence Darrow: Determinism & Responsibility

Leopold and Loeb trial of 1924, 

attorney Clarence Darrow

In this posting I will address how the debate over free will, determinism, and responsibility was the focus of one of the most watched criminal trials in history. In the above photo is a picture of Clarence Darrow seated in the forefront, famous attorney of the early twentieth century, along with his two teenage clients who were charged with murder. The speech that Darrow gave at the close of the trial was designed not to prove their innocence of doing the crime, but their not being so guilty as to deserve the death penalty, and he does this by arguing from the deterministic standpoint, which is the basis of nearly all modern sociological and psychological science. He argued that the boys were not guilty because they could not help doing what they did due to sociological and other factors. This is an example where "the rubber meets the road" so far as theories about responsibility and free will go. I majored in Sociology for one reason. My adviser (who had both a juris doctorate and a phd.) advised this when I asked him "what would be a good major for me as a pre-law student, and wanting to go to law school?"). I see why. Lawyers argue about free will and responsibility all the time. Those who represent the criminal will often plead for leniency, if not innocence, because of some sociological, psychological, or economic reason. The prosecutors, however, will always retort by saying "others have experienced the same circumstances and yet did not commit the crimes of the accused. Thus, it was their choice and are therefore guilty." 

Here is a write up for this trial (see here emphasis mine).

In the Leopold and Loeb trial of 1924, attorney Clarence Darrow achieved what many thought impossible. He saved the lives of two cold-blooded child-killers with the power of a speech.

Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb were teenagers living in a wealthy Chicago suburb when they were arrested for murder. Loeb had recently graduated, at 17 years old, from the University of Michigan, and planned to begin law school in the fall. He was obsessed with the idea of the perfect crime. His neighbor, a brilliant young man, Nathan Leopold, was a law student and a believer in Frederick Nietzsche's concept of the "superman" — the idea that it is possible to rise above good and evil.

The two boys seemed an odd match. "Dickie" Loeb charmed everyone with his good looks and cool manner. Awkward-looking Nathan Leopold tended to hide in his friend's shadow. But the two young men formed a powerful bond. Nathan was in love with Richard and would do anything he wanted for sexual favors. He later wrote, "Loeb's friendship was necessary to me — terribly necessary." His motive for the murder, he said, "was to please Dick."

Inspired by this odd mix of nihilistic philosophy, detective fiction, and misguided love, Leopold and Loeb hatched a plan to commit the "perfect crime." It was not so much the idea of murder that attracted them, but the idea of getting away with murder.

On May 21, 1924, Leopold and Loeb lured a young neighbor boy, 14-year-old Bobby Frank, into their car. They killed him with a chisel, and stuffed his body in a culvert. The next morning the Frank family received a special delivery letter — a ransom note demanding $10,000 in unmarked bills for the return of the boy.

Before Mr. Frank could pay the ransom, police discovered the child's body. There was nothing linking the criminals to the crime except for a single pair of glasses. Police traced the glasses to a Chicago optometrist who had prescribed them for Nathan Leopold. If he hadn't lost his glasses, Leopold and his friend Loeb might have indeed gotten away with murder.

Leopold's and Loeb's parents hired the best, and most expensive, criminal attorney they could find — Clarence Darrow. Darrow knew his clients would be convicted. His goal, as always, was to save them from the death penalty.

Americans read every detail of the Leopold and Loeb trial with fascination and repulsion. By 1924, automobiles like Ford's popular Model T were increasing criminal mobility; rising fears about crime would ultimately cause citizens to support a national police force. Chicago's WGN radio considered broadcasting the trial live, but decided it wasn't appropriate "entertainment" to send to families in their living rooms.

The trial reached its climax with Clarence Darrow's closing argument, delivered over twelve hours in a sweltering courtroom. Darrow admitted the guilt of his clients but argued that forces beyond their control influenced their actions. Law professor Phillip Johnson describes Darrow's argument this way: "Nature made them do it, evolution made them do it, Nietzsche made them do it. So they should not be sentenced to death for it." Darrow convinced the judge to spare his clients. Leopold and Loeb received life in prison.

The following year, Clarence Darrow played a leading role in another "trial of the century." He defended John Scopes for teaching evolution in violation of a Tennessee law. WGN radio did send their microphones to Dayton, Tennessee. It seemed a much better idea to cover a trial over ideas than to broadcast a sensational murder.

In 1936 Richard Loeb was killed in a prison fight with another inmate. In 1958, after thirty-four years behind bars, Nathan Leopold was released from prison. He died in 1971.

Said one author on Clarence Darrow's famous defense of two teenagers accused of murder (here emphasis mine):

"When teenagers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb went to trial after killing an acquaintance "for the thrill of it," their lawyer, Clarence Darrow, delivered a twelve hour summation over three days to save his clients from the hangman's noose. Darrow used three strategies of transformation to invert prevailing concepts of justice and crime. Through such reversals, he deflected criminal culpability from his clients to their upbringing, the prosecutors, and the legal system itself."

In another write up, "Crime and Criminals: Address to the Prisoners in the Chicago Jail" (1902) (see here) we have these words of Darrow to the criminals in Jail (emphasis mine).

"If I looked at jails and crimes and prisoners in the way the ordinary person does, I should not speak on this subject to you. The reason I talk to you on the question of crime, its cause and cure, is because I really do not in the least believe in crime. There is no such thing as a crime as the word is generally understood. I do not believe there is any sort of distinction between the real moral condition of the people in and out of jail. One is just as good as the other. The people here can no more help being here than the people outside can avoid being outside. I do not believe that people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible."

This philosophy regarding crime and punishment was a minor view of a few in 1924, but now 99 years later, it is the philosophy of the Liberals today and is behind the idea of being sympathetic to lawbreakers, as seen in the "no bail" policy of many municipalities, and of allowing felons to go back to the streets after arrest, and of giving mere slaps on the wrist for many crimes (in California, it is no crime to steal anything less than roughly a thousand dollars, and thus we now have mobs robbing stores). But, more on all this shortly.

Darrow also said:

"I suppose a great many people on the outside would say I was doing you harm if they should hear what I say to you this afternoon, but you cannot be hurt a great deal anyway, so it will not matter. Good people outside would say that I was really teaching you things that were calculated to injure society, but it’s worth while now and then to hear something different from what you ordinarily get from preachers and the like. These will tell you that you should be good and then you will get rich and be happy. Of course we know that people do not get rich by being good, and that is the reason why so many of you people try to get rich some other way, only you do not understand how to do it quite as well as the fellow outside."

Believe it or not, I was taught this very thing in some of my Sociology classes in a conservative university founded by Baptists and supported by a large endowment from a Presbyterian. I took a class in "Deviant Behavior." It had a black liberal professor and we only had about 6-8 students. Deviants or criminals are only such because a powerful group decided to call a certain behavior deviant or criminal. This is typical of Marxists, who see that many labels and definitions are created by the power elite and forced on the poor working class. Is adultery deviant behavior? It was once illegal, as was homosexuality. If we define "deviant" or "criminal" as that which is against how the majority has defined them, then adultery and homosexuality are no longer deviant or criminal because the majority no longer judges or defines them so. We are more and more calling law abiding citizens the deviants, and those who do not support drag shows in churches and schools, including grammar schools. Paul called them "despisers of those who are good." (II Tim. 3: 3) The moral (godly or righteous) are becoming a small minority and are being made the criminal!   

Darrow also said:

"There are people who think that everything in this world is an accident. But really there is no such thing as an accident. A great many folks admit that many of the people in jail ought not to be there, and many who are outside ought to be in. I think none of them ought to be here. There ought to be no jails, and if it were not for the fact that the people on the outside are so grasping and heartless in their dealings with the people on the inside, there would be no such institution as jails."

This is where Determinism presents dangers if not properly taught and handled. It leads people to say that no one can be blamed for anything. No one is responsible. But, that is why I subscribe to "free will" to some extent and am a Compatibilist. There are causes to the choices we make. That is why in our striving to make the right choices we must understand what influences are operating upon our wills. Further, we are responsible for what we choose and do, even though the reasons or causes of our choosing and doing are not known and cannot be shown to be of such a nature as to take away liability or responsibility. The two young teenagers defended by Darrow were guilty of a heinous murder. They chose to do the crime. Yes, there were causes or reasons behind their choice, but not such as could excuse or justify them. It may however often lead to a smaller sentence and leniency. 

 

Free Will & Determinism (vii)

I suppose it was quite natural for me, in talking about how God works on the will of his creatures, to at some point talk about the conversion/regeneration experience, seeing it is a place where the difference of opinion on the freedom of the will becomes intense between Arminians and advocates of "free will," and their Calvinist and Determinist opponents. I have alluded to the bondage of the will as respects man's natural depravity, how he is compelled by his nature to sin, though not necessarily any particular sin. When it comes to changing the will of man in conversion the Calvinists believe in what is called "irresistible grace," or "effectual calling." Those who oppose this idea say that it amounts to forcing salvation on people who do not want it. There is much we could say about this but will not go into great detail on it now in this condensed series. 

I believe that what we have seen already shows that God can and does, thankfully, mess with free will. Perhaps a better term for "irresistible grace" would be "conquering grace," or "victorious grace," for God does conquer and capture the will of sinners, taking the will captive to Christ and freeing it from depravity. It is like taming wild horses by "breaking" them by a "bronco buster." Man is born like a wild ass's colt (Job 11: 12) and has a stubborn obstinate will like a mule or jackass. His will must be broken by Christ. When he rides the sinner the sinner will be convicted (against his will I might add) and his will tamed to serve Christ. So we see this in the conversion experience of the apostle Paul. We are born with a will that is naturally disposed to sin and to reject God and righteousness and this is because of the will of Adam bringing sin into the race. It is also irresistible and effectual, for who has not been born with a depraved will? But, the will of "the last Adam," Jesus Christ, also assuredly brings about a change in the will of sinners without fail. 

I have also shown how coming to love God and his Son Jesus Christ is compelling and irresistible with some (and these are the elect) so that they fall in love passively and yet actively too for they set their affections and love upon Christ whom they have seen as "altogether lovely." So Paul says - "For the love of Christ constraineth us." (II Cor. 5: 14 kjv) Or, as the ESV -  "For the love of Christ controls us." Or, as the NIV - "For Christ’s love compels us." Further, doing something freely does not exclude being compelled. As stated previously, I came to Christ willingly and freely and yet I was also effectually drawn and compelled. Jesus spoke of this when he charged servants to "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." (Luke 14: 23) Yes, the compelling was done by words, by exhortations, by persuasive speech, but still it is compelling. Those whom God especially wills to persuade compellingly, he does so without fail. To show that God can successfully persuade any time he chooses, let us observe this text from the old testament.

"Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. “And the LORD said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. “Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ “The LORD said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the LORD said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ “Therefore look! The LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the LORD has declared disaster against you.” (I Kings 22: 19-23 nkjv)

Think about planning a surprise birthday party for someone. You need to get the person (Sam) whose birthday it is to be at a certain place at a certain time and so you ask others who are helping to plan the surprise party - "how can we get Sam to the place at that time without him suspecting?" Oftentimes it involves telling Sam a lie to get him to that place and time. The spirit in the above story offers to go and "persuade" Ahab, the wicked king whom God had decided to kill, or be killed, and God asks him how he will do this persuading. At this point we think of some questions that ought to be asked, and some observations made.

1) The spirit does not seem to be in doubt of his ability to persuade Ahab and this being so, says something about what the spirit believes about being able to persuade human beings

2) If the spirit believed that Ahab could successfully resist being persuaded, he could not speak so certainly of success in persuading Ahab, but would have said "I will go and try to persuade Ahab and hope and expect him to be persuaded."

3) Further, God tells the spirit that he will succeed in persuading Ahab. But, if the Open Theists are correct, then God could not know whether the persuading will be successful since Ahab would have a free will and may or may not be persuaded. 

So, we may say that Ahab was compelled by the persuasive abilities of an angel of heaven. God is a persuader and he is able to persuade any man or angel if he so will and work it. He knows what will persuade this or that man. God does not fail to convince or persuade when he chooses to put forth the right amount of power and means to effect persuasion. 

This of course, brings up the question as to whether God is limited in his efforts to persuade. Some say that God is self limited in the degree of effort he can put forth in persuading sinners to repent or trust in him as their Lord and Savior. Some say that God cannot "force" or "compel" sinners to believe and repent or do anything good. That would take away from a creature's "free will" and make them only puppets, it is argued. Therefore, God must limit the degree of "influence" he exerts upon the heart, mind, and will of sinners so that he is not guilty of "coercion" or forcing a person against his will. Defining when God crosses the line or Rubicon so that his influence and persuasion becomes "forced" and "coercive," is the crux of the debate. But Job says: "How forceful are right words! But what does your arguing prove?" (Job 6: 25) So, if God's word is "forceful," does it not "force"? 

I take it as a basic proposition of my understanding of the scriptures to say that it teaches that God can save any sinner any time he pleases. (Or, in a broader context, can turn the heart of anyone in whatever direction he pleases) If you want to call that God forcing salvation on people against their will and decision, then so be it (though it really is a more involved question and needs much discussion and clarification). Who can deny that God uses force (or power) against the force of depravity and other factors operating upon the will? Does he not, metaphorically speaking, use force to pry people away from their lusts and sinful desires? 

Is it true to say "to know Christ (or God) is to love Christ"? To my mind, this is one of those most difficult questions that must be answered with both a "yes and no." Those who truly come to know Christ deeply and insightfully, will admire him, adore him, and love him. Those who do not love Christ may know a lot about him from reading the scriptures, or from hearing others speak of him, but they only know Christ intellectually, abstractly, and superficially.  Further, there are different kinds of love (hence the several different Greek words translated "love" in NT English translations), and many who know about Christ and his teachings, about his biographical story, have warm feelings, and sympathies, friendship love, for Jesus, but who do not love him in the most intimate of manners, with "agape" or deep penetrating love in the heart and spirit. 

Chris is beautiful, or "altogether lovely" (Song of Sol. 5: 16) The beauty of Christ is alluded to in these words addressed to Christian women:

“Your beauty should not come from outward adornments, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.” (I Peter 3: 3-4)

When we speak of the beauty of Christ, we are not talking about his physical appearance while on earth. Of Christ the Messiah Isaiah said: "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." (Isa. 53: 2b NIV) His beauty was and is in his "inner self," and in "the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit," the kind Peter calls on holy women to work on obtaining. 

So, why do many who come to know about Jesus choose not to love and serve him? Why are they not attracted to him as are others? Is it not because it takes a secret internal work of the Holy Spirit to give new eyes to see the beauty of Christ? Is it not because he removes the veil that keeps them from seeing the "perfection of beauty" (Eze. 28: 12) in Christ? Wrote Paul regarding this:

"But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them." (II Cor. 4: 3-4)

"Blinded minds" and a "veil" keep sinners from seeing the full beauty and glory (those two things are linked together in many verses) of the Savior presented in the gospel and coming to love and believe in him. When this veil is removed and one can see the real beauty of Christ, he then finds it impossible to keep from adoring and loving him and then placing faith in him (for "faith works by love"; Gal. 5: 6). This is when the sinner comes to love Christ and to effect union with him by covenant. The sinner chooses Christ, but it is a choice both done freely and yet done by being irresistibly drawn to Christ. 

Is love a voluntary choice or an involuntary emotion? Or both? Is love active, passive, or both? Is love instantaneous and progressive (growing and increasing)? Surely it is both a conscious choice and a spontaneous reaction. It is both active and passive. Thus we see texts which exhort people to love God, Christ, and the way of the Lord, all which demonstrates that love is a choice. Paul said to believers "set your affection on things above and not on things of the earth." (Col. 3: 2) Men are responsible to love what is lovely, morally speaking. If they love sin and evil, they are responsible for choosing to do so. 

Christ speaks of the "first love" of professing Christians. (Rev.2: 1) This means that Christ becomes the one loved more than anyone else. It may also describe the love that characterizes the newly converted Christian, in his initial love for Christ and of the honeymoon period he has with his new master who he has fallen in love with, and with whom he is infatuated. 

People not only ought to love Christ, since he is beautiful and worthy, but they will be condemned for not loving him, and for choosing rather to love themselves, to love the world, to love sin, to love carnal pleasures, etc. Wrote Paul: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.” (I Cor. 16: 22) "Anathema Maranatha" means to be cursed at the second coming of Christ. This is why men are called to the love of Christ and condemned for choosing not to do so. They refuse to love him because they are blinded and veiled by Satan and by depravity and lust.

All should be "lovers of God" (II Tim. 3: 4). The Greek word philotheos (another genitive) is contrasted in the context with "lovers of their own selves " (vs. 2) and "lovers of pleasures" (vs. 4). In conversion and in being born again (becoming God's offspring), God turns hearts and minds in a new direction. He does not give a faculty for loving, for all already have that, but he changes what it is that is loved. Prior to conversion to Christ a person's heart and mind, yea, his love and affection, are towards self, pleasures, and the world (which is governed by Satan), but afterwards it is turned in a new direction, and Christ is now loved more than self, pleasures, and things of the world. Further, we have already noticed at least two texts which speak of God's turning the hearts of people. He turns the heart of kings as he turns the courses of rivers, which are both by his omnipotence. He turned the heart of the Egyptians to hate his people and to deal with them harshly. So, we may say in summary that the cause for anyone falling in love with God and with Christ, and with the things of both, is from God's initiative and doing, i.e. his act of turning the heart. 

This, of course, does not exclude God calling upon people to turn themselves and their own hearts and minds. Both can be true, as I have shown many times. So we hear Ephraim say - "turn Thou me, and I shall be turned, for Thou art the Lord my God." (Jer. 31: 18)

So, we confess that God calls all who hear the gospel to behold the full glory and beauty of Christ and to love and to serve him and yet, they cannot because they have a veil or blinder that is preventing them from obtaining that full vision and revelation of Christ which is necessary for conversion and salvation. (See Matt. 11: 25-27; 16: 16-17) Thus it is only when the Spirit sovereignly removes the blinders, the veil, that the lost sinner is able to see clearly the full beauty of Christ and be fully drawn to him. Jesus spoke of this when he said "everyone who sees the Son and believes in him" or "beholding the Son." Seeing Christ through the veil of ignorance, depravity, blindness, hardness, mist of spiritual darkness, etc. makes lovers and believers of Christ. Here we may say that it is true that "to see him, or to know him, is to love him." If we look at Christ as through opaque glass, and get not a full clear sight of him, we will not be so affected by his beauty. There is nothing unattractive about the person of Jesus Christ. 

"How We Come To Love God

"God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who has been given to us." (Rom. 5: 5 NIV)

Said one Greek scholar (See the note for Rom. 5: 5 here - emphasis mine)

"The phrase ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ (hē agapē tou theou, “the love of God”) could be interpreted as either an objective genitive (“our love for God”), subjective genitive (“God’s love for us”), or both (M. Zerwick’s “general” genitive [“Biblical Greek”, §§36–39]; D. B. Wallace’s “plenary” genitive [ExSyn 119–21]). The immediate context, which discusses what God has done for believers, favors a subjective genitive, but the fact that this love is poured out within the hearts of believers implies that it may be the source for believers’ love for God; consequently an objective genitive cannot be ruled out. It is possible that both these ideas are meant in the text and that this is a plenary genitive: “The love that comes from God and that produces our love for God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us” (ExSyn 121)."

I certainly do believe that it includes the objective genitive, and means "love for God." Paul is not describing how God came to love people (sinners) but how people come to love God. In the previous text, he tells us why people do not set their affection upon the Lord. It is because their vision of Christ is greatly obscured by the blinders they have over their eyes. In the above verse in Romans, on the other hand, he describes how people come to love God and Christ. He says that "the love of God" (a genitive) "has been poured out" or "shed abroad" (KJV) and may be either middle or passive voice, the latter no doubt since the one doing the pouring is the Holy Spirit. The heart is passive in being poured upon, and then becomes quickly active and responsive. 

In all this divine working in conversion God is messing with the heart, mind, and will of people, to one degree or another, and for one purpose or another. And, thank God he did. If God were waiting on me to turn my own heart, or to change my inner desires by an act of will, then I would never be turned nor choose Christ. So the apostle whom Jesus loved said - “We love him, because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19) Also, the prophet Jeremiah records this word: "The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." (Jer. 31: 3) It is out of love that God draws sinners, and it is love for him unto which they are drawn. This is described by the young love of king Solomon in the Song of Solomon. She says:

"Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine. Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee. Draw me, we will run after thee: the king hath brought me into his chambers: we will be glad and rejoice in thee, we will remember thy love more than wine: the upright love thee." (Song of Solomon 1: 2-4)

"His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem." (5: 16)

I believe this love is both passive and active. The young woman fell in love with Solomon and became infatuated with his person. Love for him controlled what she chose to do. We see this same type of falling in irresistible love in the story of -

Hosea & Gomer 

There are excellent lessons from the story of Hosea's love for Gomer the prostitute and how it pictures God's love for his people Israel and how it becomes the cause of the people coming to love God, illustrating the truth that "we love him because he first loved us," for Hosea loved Gomer before she was ever drawn to love him. In an excellent writing titled "THE GREATEST LOVE STORY NEVER TOLD (SONG OF SOLOMON)" Leland Acker wrote (See here; emphasis mine):

"The Song of Solomon is often overlooked in Bible studies for a variety of reasons. First, it’s located in the middle of the Old Testament. Secondly, the imagery of passionate romance depicted in the book can seem awkward for groups with young children, or groups with both genders. Thirdly, and possibly the biggest reason, is that the book can be difficult to understand."

"Even the great Bible expositor Charles Haddon Spurgeon expressed difficulty in interpreting the Song of Solomon when he said the book could only be understood by the “initiated,” and that the book stood in the middle of the Old Testament like the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden, whose fruit you cannot eat unless you are brought by Christ past the cherubim with the fiery sword. Apparently, Spurgeon was incapable of simply saying, “This book is hard.”

Says Acker further:

"Song of Solomon is often preached as a book about marriage. However, Spurgeon believed, as do many other Bible teachers, that Song of Solomon is an allegory for the love Christ has for His people.

It’s with that context that we examine the book, Song of Solomon. The Song of Solomon can be divided into three parts… the romance, the wedding, and the marriage. Each mirrors a stage in our walk with Christ." 

(Yes; It not only is an allegory depicting the love of Christ for his people but also of the love his people have for him as their chosen companion)

Says Acker further:

"In the beginning of Song of Solomon, we see the romance develop between the Shulamite woman and King Solomon. In Verses 1:5-6, the Shulamite woman notes that she is black, that she keeps vineyards for others, and her mother’s children were angry with her. The fact that she is black indicates that she has spent her life in hard field labor. She has not known luxury, nor has she been able to preen or care for herself. While she says that she is comely (she looks good,) her body shows the effects of her life of hard labor.

She also says that she has not kept her own vineyard, which means she has no vineyard. She has no wealth, she has no assets. (Just as every sinner comes to Christ, saying "just as I am without one plea") She is hardly a bride suited for a king. 

(She was chosen by Solomon for reasons we do not know. We only know that she had no personal attributes or assets that earned her favor with him; so God's people are chosen to salvation apart from any worthiness) 

Says Acker further:

"In Old Testament times (as well as medieval times, and even modern times), royalty married those who could bring peace or prosperity to their kingdoms. Alliances, trade agreements, and even mergers were orchestrated through royal weddings. The Shulamite woman can offer none of these. Yet, despite her destitute situation, King Solomon loves her. In Verse 2:4, the Shulamite woman says, “He brought me to the banqueting house. His banner over me was love.” This is a Cinderella-type story if there ever was one. King Solomon not only loves the Shulamite woman, and cares for her, but he brings her to the banquet. There’s a banquet, a ball. The creme de la creme are there. And King Solomon has this Shulamite woman on his arm, is introducing her to every one, and his proud to be in love with her.

It means a lot that King Solomon makes this romance public. He loves the Shulamite woman. She is the object of his love, and he is driven by his love to care for her. She is not a scandal to him, and he is not ashamed of her.

This is a mirror to how Christ loves us. He loves us in spite of the fact there is nothing we can do for Him. He loves us in spite of the rejection we suffer at the hands of others. He lifts us out of our hopelessness and takes us into His kingdom, where we can know love, care, and be provided for."

This will conclude this series on this subject. Combined with what I have written over the years on this subject, it is extensive. 

 

Free Will & Determinism (vi)

I want to show in this posting the way the scriptures speak of how God does in fact "mess with free will" and credit his internal influence or working with causing people to make the choices he wants them to make. Also, I want it to be known that I believe in "free will," but not as it is often defined. When I came to Christ in evangelical conversion, I came in some ways with a sense of freeness, and in some ways I felt compelled. I was being drawn by the Father, by the power of the Gospel and Spirit of God, but I did not feel like I was being dragged but drawn like a magnet attracting metal. My conversion was the result of my having willingly chosen and received Christ but it was the Lord who made me willing by attracting me. (Psa. 110: 3; Phil. 2: 13) 

God's Operation on The Will of Man

"And they came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, and they brought the LORD'S offering to the work of the tabernacle of the congregation, and for all his service, and for the holy garments. And they came, both men and women, as many as were willing hearted, and brought bracelets, and earrings, and rings, and tablets, all jewels of gold: and every man that offered offered an offering of gold unto the LORD...And all the women whose heart stirred them up in wisdom spun goats' hair...The children of Israel brought a willing offering unto the LORD, every man and woman, whose heart made them willing to bring for all manner of work, which the LORD had commanded to be made by the hand of Moses." (Exo. 35: 21-22, 26, 29)

Notice first what the text says was the cause for the people described above (red letters) doing what they did (bringing offerings and gifts). It was because they had a "heart" that was "stirred up," a "willing heart," and a "spirit" that was "made willing." Second, notice that it says that "every one," "every man," who had such a willing heart and spirit did the giving. If responding to this inner influence depended upon the kind of free will that extremists define, then we would expect some to resist that influence. In other words, once a person got this heart and spirit, this willingness, he did not fail doing what he was being urged and desirous to do. Now, let us ask - "how did these people get this willing heart and spirit?" Who can deny that it was God who "made" them "willing"? That God makes his people willing is asserted in scripture. (Psa. 110: 3; Phil. 2: 13) Another text that shows that God creates the willing heart and spirit and it effectually brings about the behavior God desires, as in the above case, is the following, and it is good behavior that he produces by creating a right heart and spirit. 

"And the LORD stirred up the spirit of Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, governor of Judah, and the spirit of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest, and the spirit of all the remnant of the people; and they came and did work in the house of the LORD of hosts, their God, In the four and twentieth day of the sixth month, in the second year of Darius the king." (Hag. 1: 14-15)

This is similar to the text of Moses in Exodus. Let us ask some questions pertaining to the text. Why did "all the remnant of the people," along with Zerubbabel and Joshua, "come and work" in the house of God? Answer: because the LORD "stirred up the spirit" of them all. How many who were stirred up by LORD God came to work? Answer: all of them. How many resisted the stirring of God and did not come? Answer: None. What are we to infer or deduce from that fact? Answer: that 1) God predetermined to do this stirring, and that 2) it was the effectual and irresistible cause of the good choices and behavior, and 3) the people acted with a feeling of freeness though the work of God in stirring predetermined their willing obedience.

Now let us notice these texts which show God bringing about the choices and behavior of the Egyptians towards the Hebrews. 

"Speak now in the hearing of the people, and let every man ask from his neighbor and every woman from her neighbor, articles of silver and articles of gold.” And the Lord gave the people favor in the sight of the Egyptians. Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants and in the sight of the people." (Exo. 11: 2-3)

"The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians." (Exo. 12: 36)

How did the Lord give the Hebrews "favor in the sight of the Egyptians" and make the Egyptians "favorably disposed toward" the Hebrew slaves? Did not that involve God messing with the free will of the Egyptians? Were the Egyptians robots as a result of God altering their attitudes and decisions? What resulted from God making the Egyptians desirous and willing to show favor to the Hebrews? They lent them the things mentioned in the text. That demonstrates that God does mess with free will and that he can turn one's heart and will in another direction any time he pleases. Note also how the Lord caused the Egyptians to lend valuables to the Hebrews so that they could "spoil" (or we might call rob or steal) those items borrowed from the Egyptians. Many would argue that God was supporting theft. But, it is really not so because everything already belongs to the Lord, including all the silver and gold. Further, it is not theft for a victorious army to take the "spoils of war" and it not be considered theft.

We also see where Moses was in Egypt when he turned forty because God messed with his free will. Said Stephen in his marvelous dying sermon concerning Moses:

"And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel."  (Acts 7: 23)

How came into his heart? By accident? By chance? Or, by divine purpose and work? The latter, no doubt. Further, it seems that every time in the scripture that God is said to put something into the heart or mind of a person, or to move them, they certainly were made to will and do something. Never do we read where God put something into the heart of persons, or "stirred" hearts to do something, and yet they did not do the thing God was influencing them to do. That is noteworthy and significant. It really is summed up well by Solomon who said by inspiration: "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turns it wheresoever he will." (Prov. 21: 1) God's will is behind the turning of the will of his creatures. It is that simple. It may be hard to accept, but God does "mess with free will." Notice another text dealing with God "turning" the heart to choose and do what God purposes. "He turned their heart to hate his people, to deal subtilly with his servants." (Psa. 105: 25)

Most of the above examples show God making people's hearts willing to do something pleasing to God. But, notice how the above text, with some others, show God stirring hearts to bring calamity or to do something that does not seem right, such as hating the Hebrew chosen people. Notice this text:

"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." (II Sam. 24: 1)

This text is difficult for several reasons. First, let us cite the parallel passage which reads differently.

"And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." (I Chron. 21: 1) 

So, who "moved" or "provoked" David to number Israel (a census for conscription)? In the text in Samuel it is the LORD who did the influencing; However, in the Chronicles passage it is Satan. Further, what David was doing was against the stated will of God who forbade it. Here is what one author wrote (originally posted in Table Talk Magazine and published by Ligonier here; emphasis mine):

"Joab warned David that such a census would be sinful, most likely because it reflected a reliance on human strength in the form of a large standing army. The text also tells us that Joab did not include Levi in the census, “for the king’s command was abhorrent to Joab” (21:6). The best explanation for this is that David asked Joab to include Levites in the army even though the law of God expressly ordered Israel to exclude Levites from a military census (Num. 1). So, it seems that David sinned because he was relying on military strength, not on the Lord, and was breaking God’s regulations for military eligibility."

Since it is clear that the census David ordered was an act of transgression, displeasing God and his godly military leader (Joab), we must consider the ramifications of the text affirming that God was the one who was a cause in David's becoming willing to do it. How do we then reconcile the text above which says LORD God "moved" David to number Israel with the words of James who says "God tempts (entices) no one"? Wrote the same author:

"Note also that the text tells us Satan “incited David to number Israel” (1 Chron. 21:1). Given that the devil is involved in at least some temptations to sin for believers (1 Cor. 7:5), this statement in 1 Chronicles 21:1 is not in itself surprising. However, the parallel account of the event in 2 Samuel 24:1 explains that God incited David to take the census. Here we must understand that both God and Satan were involved, though at different levels. Scripture is clear that God never Himself sins, nor is He ever morally responsible for sin (James 1:13). At the same time, Scripture plainly teaches us that nothing happens apart from God’s sovereign will (Eph. 1:11). So, putting this all together, God ordained this sin but He did so without committing sin Himself. Only David and Satan were blameworthy in the matter of the census."

I believe this is the best way to harmonize the texts. But, in doing so, we must also harmonize it with the words of James who said God "tempts" no man to sin. In the above texts it seems that God did "move" or "provoke" Israel and David to sin. It was because God was angry with "Israel," not David, that he operated within the psyche of David, on his heart and mind, and on his will, to decide to order the census in violation of the recorded oracle of Yahweh. It was the anger of the Lord that "moved" God to "move" David to order the numbering, and it was the sin of Israel that moved and provoked God to anger. We thus see a small chain of causes. Israel's sin produces divine anger which produces David's sin. Of course there are other causes on either side of this small chain, for there are causes to Israel's action which angered God, and there are effects of David's ordering the numbering of the people, including the Levites. So, we may say that the numbering was the will of God in one sense, but not the will of God in another sense. We may also say that the decision to number Israel was "of" God in one sense and not "of" God in another sense. 

Let us see what some of the leading commentaries say about this difficult text. First, Ellicott's Commentary says (emphasis mine):

"The pronoun here stands for “the Lord,” yet in 1 Chronicles 21:1, the temptation is attributed to Satan, and Satan is clearly meant of the devil, and not simply of “an adversary.” This is a striking instance of attributing directly to God whatever comes about under His permission."  

The words highlighted above state a proposition that I have affirmed many times with those who deny that God is in any way a cause of evil or sin. I have argued that God's permissive will was still the will of God even though the adjective is given to it. (Note: when we say "permissive will" we imply that there is more than one kind of "will," yea, a will that is not permissive. So, those who decry the term "two kinds of will of God" must quit using the term "permissive will" for that implies more than one kind) I have also argued that to say that all comes to pass because God has permitted it is the same thing as saying it all comes to pass because God willed it. Don't you see? Ellicott, the Anglican bishop, was no Calvinist (as I remember) and promoted free will and decried determinism at times. Yet, he admits that God permitting a thing equates to God being the cause of that thing. Similar to this proposition is the one that says God's inaction, or his doing nothing in regard to something, or his removal of a moral restraint, are likewise causes of action on the part of his creatures, or has consequences. 

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges gives these comments: 

"The subject of the verb is Jehovah. The nation had sinned and incurred His anger, and He instigated David to an act which brought down a sharp punishment on the nation. The statement that God incited David to do what was afterwards condemned and punished as a heinous sin cannot of course mean that He compelled David to sin, but that in order to test and prove his character He allowed the temptation to assault him. Thus while we read that “God himself tempteth no man” (James 1:13), we are taught to pray “Bring us not into temptation” (Matthew 6:13). In 1 Chronicles 21:1 we read “Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel.” The older record speaks only of God’s permissive action: the latter tells us of the malicious instrumentality of Satan. The case is like that of Job (Job 1:12; Job 2:10)." 

Again, this commentary attempts to explain how God can be said to have caused David to sin by his moving, provoking, and stirring, and yet how it can also be said that God did not cause it. It also says that God moving David to number Israel meant only that he willed to suffer Satan to move David to do so. For my own self, I readily confess that the text shows that God can, when angered (anthropomorphically speaking), react in such a way that one of his creatures (in this case one who he dearly loved) will be successfully tempted of Satan to sin. This is similar to the hardening of the heart by God, wherein God's judicial hardening of the heart of the rebellious leads them to have less restraint on their sinful course and so they commit greater sins. I see the same thing at work in the texts above. God's anger at Israel led him to lesson his restraints upon the sinful activity of his people, including David, and this led him to have no sufficient means to resist doing what Satan was moving him to do. All must therefore admit that God caused the sin indirectly, by his permission, and by his removing of defenses, and for this reason, it is believed, he may be said to be not unjust. However, many would argue that this does not excuse God. They would say that if we acted in the same way towards others, then we would be judged as having acted wrongly. So, we have another conundrum, another paradox. 

 Barnes Notes and Commentary says:

"And he moved David - In 1 Chronicles 21:1 the statement is, "and an adversary" (not "Satan," as the King James Version, since there is no article prefixed, as in Job 1:6; Job 2:1, etc.) "stood up against Israel and moved David," just as 1 Kings 11:14, 1 Kings 11:23, 1 Kings 11:25 first Hadad, and then Rezon, is said to have been "an adversary" (Satan) to Solomon and to Israel. Hence, our text should be rendered, "For one moved David against them." We are not told whose advice it was, but some one, who proved himself an enemy to the best interests of David and Israel, urged the king to number the people."

It matters not, for the purpose of our study on determinism and free will, to discuss whether the words "and Satan stood up to provoke David to number Israel" are a reference to Satan the fallen angel or to an adversary of Israel, as Barnes and others suggest. Whether it be Satan or some other adversary, the point is still the same relative to God being able to mess with free will, to actually cause a person to choose to do a particular thing. In the text we see that David did what he did (numbering) because he chose to do so, and we are told that he chose to do so because both God and Satan incited him to do it. If this bothers us, and does not fit well with our paradigm about how God works, and about his responsibility in events and occurrences, and have cognitive dissonance therefrom, let us not twist the text, but let us rather say that we cannot comprehend this mystery. 

Now, let me cite some other texts which show how God messes with free will and actually works internally in people to bring them to make the decisions he wants them to make, and to do what he wants them to do. I will offer little comment, since they are similar to the texts above, but are given simply as additional proof of our several theses. 

"And it came to pass, when the captains of the chariots saw Jehoshaphat, that they said, It is the king of Israel. Therefore they compassed about him to fight: but Jehoshaphat cried out, and the LORD helped him; and God moved them to depart from him." (II Chron. 18: 31)

"And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind." (Isa. 7: 2)

This verse seems to completely overthrow the common notion of free will. It says that the action of heart being "moved" (which we must assume was God's causing) was "as the trees are moved by the wind." That statement is not consistent with free will. It affirms that the will was determined, that the heart's movement (in choosing and in decision) was an effect of a irresistible cause. God messed with the heart and the will of the house of David.

"And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day." (I Chron. 5: 26)

"Moreover the LORD stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians, that were near the Ethiopians: And they came up into Judah, and brake into it, and carried away all the substance that was found in the king's house, and his sons also, and his wives; so that there was never a son left him, save Jehoahaz, the youngest of his sons." (II Chron. 21: 161-7)

"Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD spoken by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the LORD God of heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up." (II Chron. 36: 22-23; Ezra 1: 1)

"And the LORD stirred up an adversary unto Solomon, Hadad the Edomite: he was of the king's seed in Edom...And God stirred him up another adversary, Rezon the son of Eliadah" (I Kings 11: 14, 23)

This text is similar to the ones mentioned above about David numbering the people at the instigation of both LORD God and Satan. 

“For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, to be of one mind, and to give their kingdom to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled." (Rev. 17: 17)

Here is another case where what results from God's "putting into hearts" to do something that "fulfills God's purpose" is something that is unrighteous. In this case the ten wicked confederate kings unite with Antichrist to set up his evil empire. Will we also explain this by saying "put into their hearts" means "he permitted" such and such? It seems God is doing more than just permitting behavior. Actually, the same words could have been used in regard to the people and groups who conspired together to have Christ murdered. (See Acts 2: 23; 4: 27-28) There is a sense in which God willed the murder of his Son Jesus Christ. There is also a sense in which he did not will it. It was against the will of God to murder the innocent. But, God chose to suffer it, and to bring infinite good from the murder.  

What all this shows is that human choice and decision can be caused by things outside of a person and yet the person may be said to have acted freely and voluntarily, that is, without sensing that he was being compelled or effectually moved by those exterior causes operating upon the desire, mind, spirit, soul, and will of that person. Men often fail in their attempts to move the heart and will to do a thing, but God does not fail. Yet, someone may say, in kind response, "I have been urged by the Spirit to do many things and yet I rebelled and chose not to do as urged. So, how do you explain that in lieu of your view that the urging of the Lord is always successful or effectual? Do the scriptures not speak of people resisting the Spirit and grieving him?" Yes, that is true. But, do they not also say that men "could not resist the wisdom" by which the apostles and Stephen the martyr spake? (See Luke 21: 15; Acts 6: 10) My view, and that of many others, is that the difference lies in the amount of force or power exerted by God. When the power of X (lust, for instance) is greater than the power of Y (divine power or influence exerted against the power of X), then lust will successfully resist. However, when divine power is increased and become greater, lust will not be able to insure successful resistance in a man. Lust will then be overcome.

In the scriptures we read of a "willing heart" (Exo. 35: 35), and a "willing mind" (I Chron. 28: 9; II Cor. 8: 12), and about how "the spirit is willing" (Matt. 26: 41), and we are told to attribute the reason for such hearts and spirits to the working of God. So too when the apostle uses such language as 1) "as he purposes in his heart" (II Cor. 9: 7), and 2) "intents of the heart" (Heb. 4: 12) does he give God the credit for producing such hearts. So Paul says - "for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (Phil. 2: 13) 

Why do Christians pray for God to control their actions, as the words in the picture at the head of this posting affirm? I recall one hymn that says "Prince of peace, control my will." Here are two lines in particular:

Prince of peace, control my will;
Bid this struggling heart be still:
Bid my fears and doubtings cease:

Hush my spirit into peace.

May Thy will, not mine be done;
May Thy will and mine be one;
Chase these doubtings from my heart,
Now Thy perfect peace impart.

Notice not only how the Christian prays for his will to become enslaved to God and righteousness (yet free from sin and lust), and also affirms that all God has to do is to "bid" my heart to feel or do for it to feel and do. All he has to do is "chase" doubtings away and they cannot remain or "hush" the spirit into peace. 

I expect to finish this condensed series with one further post. This is not a subject that should be made into a hobby horse. I affirm both free will and predestination and divine causality. My efforts to show how they may be viewed as not inconsistent no doubt falls short, and in this I am not alone. We cannot fathom the deep things of God. One day we will understand it all better by and by.

 

Free Will & Determinism (v)

My Thesis

I believe that all has been determined by God and that nothing occurs apart from his will (which includes his permissive will). I also believe that angels and humans have limited free will. I also believe that divine determinism and human free will are compatible (though we may not know how to properly show it to be so). The great Charles Spurgeon said:

"Think, first of all, of the way of God in relation to predestination and free agency. Many have failed to understand how everything, from the smallest event to the greatest, can be ordained and fixed—and yet how it can be equally true that man is a responsible being and that he acts freely, choosing the evil and rejecting the good. Many have tried to reconcile these two things and various schemes of theology have been formulated with the objective of bringing them into harmony. I do not believe that they are two parallel lines which can never meet, but I do believe that for all practical purposes, they are so nearly parallel that we might regard them as being so. They do meet, but only in the Infinite mind of God is there a converging point where they melt into one! As a matter of practical, everyday experience with each one of us, they continually melt into one, but, as far as all finite understanding goes, I do not believe that any created intellect can find where they meet! Only the Uncreated as yet knows this." (From "The Way of Wisdom" sermon - see here)

From these words we see how Spurgeon may be designated as being a "Compatibilist," supporting what is called "Compatibilism."  That is defined by Britannica as - "Thesis that free will, in the sense required for moral responsibility, is consistent with universal causal determinism." What Spurgeon affirms is also what is expressed in the 1689 London Baptist Confession. 

All Things Are Of God

I dealt with this, along with showing weakness in the typical "free will defense" (FWD) in the context of debate about "the problem of evil" (theodicy) "Chapter 100 - Hardshells and Predestination III" (See here). That whole series of articles gives my views on the subject. In fact, I had forgotten how much I had already written on this subject through the years. My memory is not too sharp any more. I read things now that I wrote years ago and forgot I had ever written them. When you have written thousands of articles you forget much of what you have written. 

Any time I debate with those who take the Libertarian view of free will, which says that God does not cause nor determine angel or human choice, I simply point to the scriptures that say all things are of God, which says he is the cause of all things and is responsible for all things being as they are. I then ask the advocates of free will, and the deniers of God being in any sense a cause of evil, to explain those texts to me and how they harmonize with their proposition that says that some things are not "of God." In the above posting from that series I cited these texts which affirm that God is the cause of all things, and that this causality is in several respects. There are many kinds of causes, but for the purpose of this writing we will limit it to Aristotle's four main causes (pictured above). Here are those texts:

"And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose."  (Rom. 8: 28)

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen."  (Rom. 11: 36)

^"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."  (Eph. 1: 11)

"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."  (I Cor. 8: 6)

"For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God."  (I Cor. 11: 12)

"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation."  (II Cor. 5: 18)

All these texts affirm that "all things" are "of God." If "all things" excludes nothing, then we must say that sin, or evil, is included in those "all things." But, if we do exclude it, where is the warrant to change "all things" to "some things"? Or to change "all things" to "all these things"? Does "all things" include every person's thoughts, choices, and actions? If so, how are they "of God"? Does "of God" mean all a person's thoughts, words, choices, and deeds are what God creates or causes to be? Does that not take away from angels and men any "free will," or "moral responsibility," and make them into robots? In addressing such questions, let me focus on the text in Romans 11: 36 and make some observations upon it. The text says:

"For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." (Rom. 11: 36)

I see no reason why this text, or the others cited above, in speaking of "all things," should be limited so as to mean "some things." That "all things" does sometimes mean "all things in context" or "some things" I do not doubt. The question is, however, whether that is what it means in the above texts, as in Romans 11: 36. 

Those who deny God's having predetermined all things (without exception) will not have an easy time dealing with the above texts and their affirmation that all things, including evil, is "of God." When I have introduced these texts in debate with the advocates of Libertarian free will I have seen how they struggled to reconcile their beliefs about free will and divine determinism in lieu of these affirmations. 

I see Paul affirming how God is the cause of all things, without exception, and that this causality is in three areas. When Paul says that all things are "of" or "from God" his affirmation or proposition would fit the definition for God being both the "material" and the "formal" cause of all things as given by Aristotle. All things can be traced back to God and God is the reason for any and all things. Nothing would ever have come into existence unless God willed it. Nothing would ever occur without God making it possible. He is the source for all things, including all the evil in the world. God is the "material cause" of human beings. Man's body is made of the dust of the earth, but the earth is God's creation. Man's spirit is from the breath that God breathed into his physical form. Thus, both man's body and spirit are "of God." God is the material cause of all that is, and also "the first cause," as we have spoken about previously.

Who can deny that he is also the "formal cause" of all things? I think that when Paul says that all things are "of God" that he comprehends God being both the material and formal cause of all that is. Is this world not the design of God, at least in some sense? Though he does not will the existence of evil as an end in itself, or out of necessity (as Lewis affirmed), yet he designed a world where evil was possible and actually foreseen prior to God's creating it. So, we may say that God is also the formal cause of all things. He is the architect of the whole cosmos and governs every minute aspect of it. Notice this verse:

"For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God." (Heb. 11: 10)

The Greek word for "builder" is "technitēs" (from which we get our word "technician") and the Greek word for "maker" is "dēmiourgos," which identifies God as both architect and builder, the planner and the constructor. Two verses in the New Testament refer to God as a “builder.” In Hebrews 3:3-4, “the builder of all things is God,” the word for “builder” is kataskeuazo. This is a verb meaning “to prepare, establish, make ready, construct.” It reads literally “the one having built all things is God.” Notice also the reference again to "all things" in Paul's statement that God is the builder of "all things." Has God built evil buildings and things? There can be no question that these verses identify God as being the "formal cause" of all things. 

Paul's next proposition is that "all things" are "through him" (God) as well as "of" or "from" him. Here we see what is called the "efficient cause," and God is identified as being the efficient cause of the same "all things" of which he is the material and formal causes. This works out to mean such things as "in him we live and move and have our very being" (Acts 17: 28). Every movement of anything in God's universe, from the largest star to the smallest particle, is only possible because God wills it. Does that include the movement of our thoughts and emotions? The movement of our will? It also works out to mean that by Christ, or by God, "all things are held together" (or "consist" - Col. 1: 17). It is also why theologians like Thomas Aquinas referred to Deity as "the prime mover." 

Obviously, all things being of God, the material, formal, and first cause, does not mean that something cannot be "of God" in one sense and not "of God" in another sense (as we will shortly see). Further, all things being "through" God and Christ as "efficient causes" does not exclude or preclude other agencies, or "second causes," also being involved as "efficient " or "instrumental" causes. There is a sense in which God is the efficient cause of a man's sin, and a sense in which the man is the efficient cause of his sin. Did God no longer give life and breath, an evil man would do no more evil. Yet, as we will see, God does not entice or tempt a person to sin. He is not the direct efficient cause of any sin, though he be so indirectly. 

When the text says that "all things" are "unto him" we see God identified as the "final cause." This entails what we call "the finished product," or "the end design fulfilled," or "destination reached," etc. We know from numerous scriptures what that "end design" is, being God's manifested and revealed glory, for his praise and for his pleasure. It was also to reveal things about his nature and character, for each person in the holy Trinity to express love for each other in their unity of being. The Father created all things "for" Christ and "through" Christ. In bringing all things into existence, and in suffering sin to enter the world, a way was opened for God to manifest both his holiness and his goodness. In manifesting his holiness he shows his wrath against sin. In manifesting his mercy, grace, kindness, and benevolence he designed the scheme of redemption through the work of Christ and his sacrificial death. In sending transgressors to hell God manifests his righteous character. In saving undeserving sinners God manifests his grace. There are things about God that would not be known apart from his punishment of transgressors and of his salvation through the Son of God. Wrote Paul:

"For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Col. 1: 16-17)

Here we have another reference to "all things" and are forced to discern whether "all things" includes evil, human choices and actions, and sin. Notice that Christ, as the Son of God, before his incarnation at the time of the creation, is identified as both the efficient cause and the final cause for all things being created. All things were created "by him," making him the efficient cause. All things were created "for him," making him the final cause, the reason for creation. 

It seems likely that by "all things" in the text are the things created in the six day creation narrative of Moses in Genesis' opening chapters. If this is so, then "all things" would not include the acts of creatures. Paul speaks in the past tense saying "who created," rather than "who has been creating," which it would say if God is still creating, i.e. creating the choices and acts of creatures. 

However, I do not think that "all things" in the other texts at the head of this post are limited to what was created during the six days of God's work of creating the cosmos and man. When Paul makes his conclusion in Romans 11: 36 about "all things" being "of" God, and "through" God, and "to" God, the "all things" cannot be limited to what was created in the six days. The context of Romans eleven, and of the first eleven chapters, deals with matters of salvation, and these must be included in the "all things." The virgin birth of Christ is therefore included in the all things. Also, the work of Christ in atoning for sin is "of God," as is the work of justifying and sanctifying sinners. As stated, I do not see why "all things" cannot mean literally everything, including evil. God says he creates "evil" (Isa. 45: 7). Yes, I know how some will say "evil" does not mean sin but calamity. Yet, as they should know, the Hebrew word "ra" is often translated as wickedness in the Old Testament. Also, who can deny that the sin of Adam was a calamity? Also, the syntax of God's statement of "I create evil" implies that all evil is his creation. So we read where God, by Amos, asks "is there evil in the city and the Lord has not done it?" (3: 6) That says all the evil or calamity within the city was the result of God's working. Just saying "evil" means "calamity" to solve the cognitive dissonance really does not effect a solution. First, sin is a calamity. Second, a problem still remains by saying "ra" means calamity, for who wants to affirm that every calamity in a city is a result of God's doing? Every car wreck the result of God's doing? Every fall? Every loss? 

God did create evil when he chose to create a world of free choosing creatures who he knew would become evil and spread evil. We ought to at least be able to affirm such an obvious truth and say that in this sense God did create all the evil in the world. 

Another Problem

How do we reconcile Paul's several statements that "all things" are "of" God with verses that say something in particular is not "of" God? Let me give some examples.

"But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.” (Matt. 16: 23)

Here Jesus seems to say that some things are "of" men and not "of" God. But if all things are "of" God, it would not be correct to say of anything that it is not "of" God. We will need to affirm that the "all things" that are said to be "of God" in the above texts of scripture do not include some things, and must therefore mean "all things" in the context. Or, perhaps there is another way of harmonizing the texts. But more on that shortly. First, let us notice some additional texts that affirm that some things are not "of" God.

“He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God.” (John 8: 47)

"And every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." (I John 4: 3)

We could cite many other scriptures that say that something is "not of God." But, one more I will cite, especially since it is one that is often mentioned in the debate over whether God is in any sense a cause of sin.

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death." (James 1: 13-15)

First of all, there are temptations which God is the cause of. Let us make that clear. Notice these texts:

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. Then He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.” (Gen. 22: 1-2)

Many who are strongly opposed to the idea that God could be any kind of a cause of sin, or one who could or would tempt creatures to sin, will say that the word in Hebrew means to "test" or to "try" and not to entice or allure (same in the NT Greek). I do agree that this is so. However, a "trial" or "proving" may indeed be an allurement to sin. Some of my worst trials have been battles with sin or some particular fault. I have often been tested when thus tempted. Further, though God does not directly entice anyone to sin, yet he does in his providence permit, for good predetermined reasons, his children to be tempted to sin. So we read in the gospel that "Jesus was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil." (Matt. 4: 1) The Devil not only was testing Jesus, he was also enticing him to sin. The Father and the Spirit both wanted Christ to be tempted to sin so that Christ might be shown to be the sinless perfect man, the very Christ and Son of God. The Spirit did not do the tempting. Yet, it was God's will that Satan tempt Christ; And, of course, it was not that God wanted Satan to succeed! He wanted to demonstrate the holiness of Christ. 

Further, the testing or tempting of Abraham cannot be made to be such a test that did not involve a temptation to sin. Was it a sin for Abraham to kill his son and offer him as a sacrifice? All through the OT human sacrifice was denounced as being abominable to God. So, why does God tell him to do what is morally wrong? 

Further, who can deny that God's suffering of the Serpent (Satan) to be present in the Garden of Eden and his tempting of Eve to sin made God an indirect cause of the temptation? In the same way the Spirit was an indirect cause of Christ being tempted to sin by the Devil? We also see this same kind of divine testing described by God himself. Wrote Moses of this oracle:

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, 2 and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let us go after other gods,’ which you have not known, ‘and let us serve them,’ 3 you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." (Deut. 13: 1-2 ESV) 

Here God's testing of his people is seen by his willingly, knowingly, and purposefully suffering false prophets to have a presence among the people and to tempt them to sin. 

So, it is simply a way to avoid the issue, the cognitive dissonance, that many bible believers have with the fact that God does will for us to be tempted, for them to say that the word "tempt" means to "test" or to "try" in a non sin enticing way. It was, however, that very exact way with Eve's temptation, with Abraham's temptation, with Christ's temptation, with the covenant people's temptation in the above text, yea, with many others, including ourselves as ordinary believers. All our temptations to sin are tests and trials.  

So, we should not view the words of James as meaning that God is in no ways a cause of temptation. So, what then does James mean when he says God "tempts no one"? 

The Greek word for "tempted" in the text is "peirazō" and may mean to test or to try but it may also mean to entice to sin. 

It is interesting that the same Greek word is used not only to denote enticement to sin, as in the James passage, and when Satan is called the "Tempter" (Matt. 4: 3) and when his enticements for Christ to sin are so called, but also to denote mere trials of adversity. Such a fact destroys attempts to say that the Greek word only means trials which are unconnected with temptations to sin. Actually, there are several passages in the new testament where the Greek word refers to a test resulting from some enticement or allurement, in addition to the ones already mentioned.  

So, there are two things that I am emphasizing. First, God does not directly tempt anyone, though indirectly he wills that we be not free from temptations to sin but that we prove ourselves by them. It is by resisting allurements to sin that we prove our metal. The same is true of trials which are not temptations to sin, such as adversities, losses, disappointments, etc. They try and prove us also. So we may say that the Spirit led Jesus to Satan to be tempted and tried and yet it would not be correct to say that the Spirit tempted Christ. Satan did the tempting, yet it was the will of the Father and Spirit, and Christ too. So, we could say also, using the language of James, that the temptation of Christ was not "of" God directly, but only indirectly was "of" God by his suffering it to occur. 

Further, since "all things" are "of" God, how can James be correct to say temptations to sin are not "of" God? Do we make "all things" to exclude the temptation of the James passage? Or, do we see a way in which the temptations to sin by Satan (or other agents such as our own fleshly carnal nature) are both "of" God and "of" something else all at the same time, in different senses? 

"For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God." ( Cor. 11: 12) 

Here we see a case where "the woman" is both "of the man" (Adam) and also "of God" because 1) she is of Adam immediately and directly, and 2) she is of God indirectly and mediately through Adam, and because "all things are of God."  We see the same thing in this text:

“Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.” (Luke 3: 38)

All through this genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter three, the words "the son" are in italics because they are supplied by the translators to bring out the meaning of the Greek. Literally it is simply "X was of Y." I am focusing again on the preposition "of" in the text. Thus we may say that Seth was "of" Adam directly and "of" God indirectly.

So, my whole point is that the passage in James is not denying that our enticements are "of God" in some sense, yea, in the sense I have explained. 

It is often a difference between God, the first cause of all causes and effects, and of what are called "second causes." 

God is the material cause of all things. The bible says this. In fact, that is part of what is meant when many passages of scripture say "all things are of God." Philosophy also acknowledges a "first cause" and often identifies it with Deity. God is the source of all things. He is also the formal cause of all things, being the result of the way he ordered the worlds he made, the result of his design as architect and builder. He is also the efficient cause of all things, though it is in this aspect of causality where the actions of God's creatures becoming secondary and efficient causes in executing the formal design of God. God is also the final cause of all things. All things are "to him." They exist or occur because God has a purpose to glorify himself and to make known himself more fully to his creatures who have his likeness and image. The final cause, or the end purpose, is not my eternal delight, but the glory of God revealed in saving me from sin and to such a destiny. 

So, I can keep saying of certain immoral behavior "that is not of God," or "that is of flesh," or "that is of the world," etc. The apostle John used the same language, writing: 

"For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (I John 2: 16)

We just need to remember that we are talking about how "all things" can be "of God" and yet certain things said to be "not of God." 

Every man can look for the immediate cause of his sin in his own heart, and can see its source in what James called inward "lust" or depravity. Jesus taught the same, saying:

"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." (Matt. 15: 19 nkjv)

 

Free Will & Determinism (iv)

There are four leading reasons that men like C.S. Lewis hold to their ideas about absolute and unfettered "free will": 

1) Free will is necessary for a creature to do either good or evil

2) Free will is necessary in order to truly love God, being the love God desires

3) Free will is necessary to exonerate God from the charge of being unfair, unjust, and not good (or to totally shift responsibility for evil from God to creatures alone or to "justify the ways of God to men")

4) Free will is necessary for creatures to be justly accountable and responsible for their crimes against God (and thus justly punished) or for them to merit any praise or receive credit in doing good

I have dealt with some of these points already in as condensed a manner as I could. In this posting I will try to condense my beliefs on the fourth point above. Those who have studied this area of philosophy, science, and theology (for the subject area touches each of these) will recognize how I am striving for brevity. I certainly could never be as expansive on this subject as Jonathan Edwards was in his mammoth work on the Freedom of The Will or Martin Luther in the verbose work titled "Bondage of the Will." One could write books of many pages on each of the points above. Actually there are numerous writings and debates of these points of discussion.

I certainly do agree, as a Soft Determinist, that some degree of free will must be possessed by the one accused of a crime in order to be held liable or "legally" responsible. It would seem to many to be an act of injustice to create a creature, then make him into a criminal, and then punish him for being a criminal. But, before jumping to conclusions, perhaps we should ponder that proposition and the consequences arising from it being the truth. 

To my mind there is a sense in which it may be truly applied to God, and a sense in which it cannot be applied to God. I would also ask if it made a difference if we substituted the words "willingly and knowingly permit him to become a criminal" for the words "make him into a criminal"? Further, is it not true that God created creatures who he knew would sin and spend eternity in Hell? And, is it not true that he created such creatures who he knew would sin and so is a material cause of them becoming sinners?  

God does not make anyone to sin, though he could prevent the sin of any, and does prevent many, but that does not mean that he is no cause at all, or is in no way responsible, as I have before demonstrated. Further, as I have shown, God creates people who he knows will sin and who will die in their sins, having rejected God and any offers of pardon. Further, God can in judgment remove providential restraints upon a wicked man and this removal leads to more wickedness. This is called "judicial hardening" of the hearts of certain sinners, which hardening is a punishment for sin and which is not remedial but rather leads to greater sins. God is thus the just cause of those greater sins. (See Acts 28: 26-28; John 12: 39-40)

"But for" God not judicially hardening, they would have been less wicked. God had that right to bring on greater judgment even though that judgment makes the wicked even more unrestrained to do evil. How many who have a "dead" or "cauterized" conscience sin more as a result of their consciences becoming so? How many drug addicts lost much of their free will when they became a slave to drugs? The point is this: in some sense God caused the hardening and the hardening brought more sin and wickedness. The ones being hardened were the blameworthy cause of their being punished with a hardened heart or dead conscience. There is a just cause and an unjust cause for doing anything.

 

Someone who was forced to do a crime, against his will, cannot be held to be guilty and liable for the crime. Our legal system is based upon this principle. Where there is no free choice to do a thing, the doer is not judged to be guilty. Yet, there still remains a kind of responsibility that cannot be removed or invalidated. Even the doer of the crime, though not found to have acted freely, say in a murder, nevertheless did kill. He may have, however, a valid excuse or justification. But, nothing can change the fact that the doing of the killing was a cause of the person being murdered. This is because "cause" is another word that is often used to mean the same thing as "responsible." Thus, even inanimate things are responsible in this sense. As when I say that the battery in the car being dead is responsible (is the reason) for the car not starting. In the sense of causation, the above person is responsible for the death, no matter what may have been the circumstances. Yet, in being declared in court as "not guilty," he will not be judged to be legally responsible. 

Defining "responsibility" (and its kindred words like blame, guilt, liability) is similar to defining "free will." Both have their difficulties and lack of agreement. Lucifer, the angel who fell from heaven and became the Satan and the Devil, even has his own definition of what it means to have "free will." He faults God for not giving him more freedom, freedom to question his Maker, freedom to do what one wants without God finding fault with it, etc. The kind of "free will" that many Existentialists speak of is similar to that of Satan. It is the idea behind the words of the creature to his Creator - "why did you make me this way?" That idea is one that says "I ought to have the right to tell God that I am not happy with how he made me and that I want him, or perhaps demand him, to do it again with changes that I choose." These say God did not give them enough free will and self determination. We also see this very thinking among the devilish folks supporting "transgender" ideology, who think that they have the right and freedom to decide whether they are male or female, rather than nature or the Creator deciding. Many of those also in the "trans-humanism" camp have the same ideology, believing that we are destined to have the technology to recreate ourselves with implants and become semi immortal hybrids, half human and half machine (of which many movies today have as a plot). All these have a definition of "free will" and "self determination" that is condemned in scripture. Satanists today promote a kind of "free will" also, which is the freedom to do evil and to not have God to interfere. 

I believe there are levels and degrees of responsibility. So too does our legal system. This is because we believe that there are degrees of "free will" and multiple causes of an act. There are what are called "mitigating factors" that are used in court in assigning guilt, responsibility, and causation. Such factors call for leniency and mercy at times in apportioning responsibility and punishment. This is why we have the legal concept of "mens rea." It  refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is "guilty mind." It is the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime. In other words "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty." Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes. In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort, for example. So we hear people say "it is more your fault than mine" and this shows that people generally recognize degrees of guilt and responsibility. 

I also believe that I am responsible for the sin of Adam ("original sin") and believe in what is called "vicarious responsibility." That is the case when a supervisory party is liable for the negligent actions of a third party for whom they are responsible. We see this kind in employers being responsible for the negligent acts of employees or parents being responsible for the acts of their children. It is the kind of responsibility we see in both Adam and Christ (the second Adam). Christ takes responsibility for the elect, that is, for everyone who believes. He takes their punishment and pays their debts. Responsibility for others is therefore connected with the concept of "imputation" or "reckoning" (as Paul wrote about, especially in Romans), which are both accounting and legal terms. 

God too, as we have seen, has in some sense claimed responsibility for the world being the way it now is. But, he is not to be blamed or declared guilty of doing evil or acting unjustly because he created creatures who he knew would be evil and evil eternally. C.S. Lewis would excuse God and say "God couldn't help it for that is the only kind of thinking creature he could create, one who was capable of becoming evil." But, as we have seen, God could have helped it. But, he chose not to create creatures who possessed free will and the power of self determination along with the attribute of immutability. Heaven is now a place where it is not possible for the elect angels and elect men to ever sin and yet they are free to do what every they want. But, they will have no desire to do evil. In this state they will not be robots or puppets, though righteousness will be their ingrained nature and habit.

Further, there are lots of scriptures that do seem to affirm that God may be a cause of people sinning. For instance there is that text where the Psalmist speaks of the relationship of Egyptians towards the Hebrew slaves, testifying that God "turned their heart to hate his people, and to deal subtilly with his servants." (Psa. 105: 25) It seems that God was the cause of the Egyptians hating his people and dealing with them in the cruel manner they did, and it seems that such was sinful behavior. So also we have God hardening of the heart of Pharaoh so that he refused to keep his word and promise and to obey God. It would take some time to deal with such texts and is not appropriate for such a condensed statement of my views on this subject. Such verses, however, do show that it is an error to say that God is in no way a cause of sin. 

Also, we should keep in mind that the word "responsible," though often provoking negative thoughts and emotions, nevertheless may as well be used in respect to good things occurring. There is a valid giving of credit to those who do good, even though God gets the greater credit, for without him and his aid and providence no one could do any good. Thus, though God gives crowns to his people based upon merit, yet they all cast their crowns at the feet of Christ. They are rewarded for good service rendered and yet all their rewards are due to God's grace. 

Responsibility, Causality, Blame, & Guilt

Does moral responsibility require free will? That is another reason why God gave the ability to freely will or choose between things having to do with right and wrong, and with pleasing God. Not only is free will a necessary attribute of rational creatures for them to love and choose God and the things of God and right, but is necessary to justly condemn those who choose sin and reject God's rule. 

Britannica Dictionary definition of Responsibility (See here) is as follows (highlighting mine): 

1) the state of being the person who caused something to happen 

2 a) a duty or task that you are required or expected to do  

3) the state of having the job or duty of dealing with and taking care of something or someone 

4) the quality of a person who can be trusted to do what is expected, required, etc. 

◊ To do something on your own responsibility is to do it without being told to and to accept the blame if it has a bad result. He changed the schedule on his own responsibility.

Britannica also, in an article written by Peter Singer and Maya Eddon and titled "free will and moral responsibility" (See here) wrote (emphasis mine):

"Free will and moral responsibility, also called problem of moral responsibility, the problem of reconciling the belief that people are morally responsible for what they do with the apparent fact that humans do not have free will because their actions are causally determined. It is an ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle."

"An ancient and enduring philosophical puzzle" indeed! Those who have studied and mused much upon it will no doubt confess the same. The same thing may be said about "the problem of evil" and "theodicy" for the philosophers and theologians. Some of course say that free will and determinism are contradictory and irreconcilable (thus Incompatibilism and a denial of Compatibilism). Others say both are true although very few are able to satisfactorily demonstrate how both are true. My belief is that one can find both free will (as I have defined it) and self determination on the one hand and divine predestination and predetermination on the other hand, to be taught and affirmed in holy scriptures. We also do not find where the bible writers wrote in order to explain the minute mechanics of how all this works. 

Kevin Timpe wrote the following under "Free Will" (See here emphasis mine):

"Most of us are certain that we have free will, though what exactly this amounts to is much less certain. According to David Hume, the question of the nature of free will is “the most contentious question of metaphysics.” If this is correct, then figuring out what free will is will be no small task indeed. Minimally, to say that an agent has free will is to say that the agent has the capacity to choose his or her course of action. But animals seem to satisfy this criterion, and we typically think that only persons, and not animals, have free will. Let us then understand free will as the capacity unique to persons that allows them to control their actions. It is controversial whether this minimal understanding of what it means to have a free will actually requires an agent to have a specific faculty of will, whether the term “free will” is simply shorthand for other features of persons, and whether there really is such a thing as free will at all."

Agreed. 

Do people lose their free will in that area where they lost "self control"? If free will is equated with self control, then we must say that there are degrees of free will and that it is relational to particular things. 

Timpe says further:

"Whether or not one can have freedom of action without free will depends on one’s view of what free will is. Also, the truth of causal determinism would not entail that agents lack the freedom to do what they want to do. An agent could do what she wants to do, even if she is causally determined to do that action. Thus, both Hobbes and Hume are rightly characterized as compatibilists."

And,

"Some philosophers do not believe that free will is required for moral responsibility. According to John Martin Fischer, human agents do not have free will, but they are still morally responsible for their choices and actions. In a nutshell, Fischer thinks that the kind of control needed for moral responsibility is weaker than the kind of control needed for free will. Furthermore, he thinks that the truth of causal determinism would preclude the kind of control needed for free will, but that it wouldn’t preclude the kind of control needed for moral responsibility. See Fischer (1994). As this example shows, virtually every issue pertaining to free will is contested by various philosophers."

Indeed, this is a subject area where there is much disagreement. So, I repeat, these are my thoughts on this subject. I do not force them on anyone but only ask for an honest hearing.

Timpe says further:

"However, many think that the significance of free will is not limited to its necessity for free action and moral responsibility. Various philosophers suggest that free will is also a requirement for agency, rationality, the autonomy and dignity of persons, creativity, cooperation, and the value of friendship and love [see Anglin (1990), Kane (1998) and Ekstrom (1999)]. We thus see that free will is central to many philosophical issues."

We could write at length on many of these points but forbear for brevity's sake.

Charles H. Spurgeon in his sermon "A Safe Prospective" (See here) expresses my views. He said:

"Now, I believe in predestination, yea, even in its very jots and tittles. I believe that the path of a single grain of dust in the March wind is ordained and settled by a decree which cannot be violated; that every word and thought of man, every flittering of a sparrow’s wing, every flight of a fly, the crawling of a beetle, the gliding of a fish in the depth of the sea — that everything, in fact, is foreknown and foreordained. But I do equally believe in the free agency of man, that man with acts a will as he wills, especially in moral operations – choosing the evil with a will that is unbiased by anything that comes from God, biased only by his own depravity of heart and the perverseness of his habits; choosing the right, too, with perfect freedom, though sacredly guided and led by the Holy Spirit, yet in such a way that his disposition is trained to choose and prefer the right and the true, not violently driven in the teeth of his own reluctance; free in his agency, for the Son of God has made him free. I believe that man is as free as if everything were left to chance, and that he is as accountable as if there were no destiny whatever. Where the two truths meet I do not know, nor do I want to know. They do not puzzle me, since I have given up my mind to believing them both. They are thought by some to be antagonistic, the one contrary to the other. I believe them to be two parallel lines. They run side by side, and perhaps even in eternity there is no point of contact between these two grand truths. But if the predestination were a revealed thing, and we could see it, it would then become utterly impossible for human nature to receive the idea of freedom, or to believe itself to be at all independent in its action. Man would, to repeat the line of Longfellow’s, feel himself to be but one of a herd of “dumb, driven cattle,” made to do, whether he willed or not, just what had been ordained."